Slashdot Mirror
What Mainstream Media Think of Gaming
John Callaham writes "Video and PC games are a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. So why don't they get the attention of movies or TV? FiringSquad interviews several members of the mainstream media, including reporters from Time, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly and more, to find the answers and see how journalism will cover games in the future." From the article: "I guess all I'd add is that gaming journalism is at a very interesting place right now. There are still a lot of people who are suspicious of games, and who don't understand their appeal, and there's an opportunity for people who write about games, if they do it well enough, to bridge that gap, and make games interesting to people who don't get them yet."
And let the Gen-Xer's cover games. Generations that didn't grow up on games just don't get them, and don't want to get them.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
""Video and PC games are a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. So why don't they get the attention of movies or TV?"
Aren't they making a movie out of World of Warcraft? Perhaps they are getting to the point of popularity that movies and TV ARE starting to take an interest.
You know, it's hard to get people to play the new "terrorism" machines... and I myself think we need more and more good, well writen articles about gaming... but since that'll never happen lets get trashed and play pong.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
Becuase Jack Thompson is also in the mainstream media and people believe that Tetris can cause killing sprees on streets with nothing more than USB pen drive.
"Oh boy"
The sad and pathetic state of the "games media." Mainstream media likes to deal with a certain level of what they collectively define as professionalism; proper sourcing, investigation past press releases, no rumormongering, staying out of bed with the subject. Now, that sure as heck isn't always adhered to, but in the "games media," it's almost never adhered to. People reprint press releases, rampant speculation, and in almost all cases play favorites. Journalists talk to each other. To whom is a TIME reporter going to talk to about games? Kotaku? IGN? Joystiq? IGN separates their writers based on what company-based bias they have. Joystiq revoked an internet poll they themselves put up for discussion because they disagreed with the results. Kotaku is amusing, but rough around the edges and doesn't exactly reek of credibility. EGM and its ilk share similar problems. The only group I can think of that would qualify would be Magic Box, but I'm still not convinced that the site isn't just a giant spider script (which would explain a great deal about the write-ups that they do print.
That said, for stories that they can simply go it alone with, such as interviews, overviews of systems or financials, the mainstream media does a servicable job. TIME's article on Nintendo's new direction the day before E3 (in addition to having the first good set of Wii screens) was the best I saw before or during the show. It's just that there's not a whole lot of news to go around, and getting the extra news to fill in the gaps requires either rampant speculation or dealing with "unprofessional" people. To be quite frank, I don't blame them.
Video and PC games are a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. So why don't they get the attention of movies or TV?
First, who the heck concluded it doesn't get enough attention. I'd say it gets enough attention, notice the E3 coverage on Internet... And there we get to the point.
TV and Movies have been here for over 70 years, part of our culture. If something is on TV, "it gets enough attention".. Aparently TV is shown on TV, and movies are shown on TV and cinemas as well.
We're used to considering what's on TV "important". The fact that thousands of online media followed who sneezes at E3, is a lot less important.
Conclusion: we just need some more time so that Internet truly becomes a respected mainstream media to non-techies, where "important" stuff can happen. Gaming is the same. Give it more time, let the gamers grow some more.
The mainstream media doesn't write much about games because it doesn't appeal much to a mainstream audience.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Are you trying to tell me that Slashdot isn't the mainstream media??
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Think about it like this...
The video game and computer game industry make more money than TV and movies combined.
But the porn industry makes more money than the TV, Music, and video game industry combined.
Yet we don't hear mainstream media talking about porn all that often other than the "Think of the children!" diatribes by hotair pundits.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That blurb is misleading; it sounds as if the article is talking about how the video game medium is represented in other media like TV and film. The topic is how the gaming industry is covered by the big news media(e.g. CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc.) compared to other entertainment industries that make just as much money as the video game industry.
The underlying assumption here is that if the gaming industry makes as much money as the movie industry it should be covered in the news as much as that other industry. Of course that's not the whole picture. People in big media report things that are important, but they also have to report things that people want to hear about. There is a huge audience that want to hear what Brad Pitt's new movie is, who's playing in the World Cup today, what Microsoft's business plans for future are, and what is going on in Capital Hill. The audience that wants to hear what John Carmack's new game engine will do is small.
Also, just because the gaming industry makes as much money as the movie industry doesn't mean it reaches as many people. The entry level cost to get into gaming is much higher. The learning curve is much steeper too, especially if you've never grown up with videogames. However, the time that can be spent on game(vs. a book, movie, or tv show) is much higher. In short, gaming has a significantly-sized, time-dedicated audience compared to other entertainment media; however, other media have a much larger audience and probably always will(unless you make video gaming cheaper and easier to learn). Thus, the gaming industry will never be covered in big news media as much as other entertainment industries.
-Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
racing cigarette speed boats in Venice.
Let's face it, the MSM doesn't have a clue as to what's going on, and so long as their advertising budget comes from Company A, that's the games they want.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So, until we get some juicy info on Lara Croft's relationship with Duke Nukem, I don't think the mainstream is going to give us as much love. ;)
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
I have become increasingly concerned that mainstream media's opinions on things were not getting enough attention. Thanks, slashdot, for at long last shining a spotlight on the mainstream media's take on gaming.
> Aren't they making a movie out of World of Warcraft?
I already saw it. Was some weirdo cow thing singing and then some other guy told me that the internet is for porn. You can probably find it on Google Video or YouTube...
"To whom is a TIME reporter going to talk to about games?"
They could try the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2207229.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5040188.stm
The BBC even does events in Second Life, they are ridiculously online-savvy.
Or the Guardian (one of the most serious UK papers):
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/
p.s. the dedicated games press does all the rampant speculation stuff because it's what their readers want! I was interested in all the articles about how Nintendo's Revolution (before the Wii name and controller details came out) was going to have a VR interface with your brainstem and be capable of showing love.
Hmm
1. movies based off of Video games. They failed
2. A tv network based on video games(G4). It failed.
3. A sitcom with animated characters from fictional video games(game over). It failed.
The last good video game coverage I saw in mainstream TV were episodes of "That's Incredible!" and "Starcade". That was over 20 years ago. That time has not come back.
When you're ratings are in the tank, and people are spending more on games than movies - you expect raptures of appause from these media outlets? Stories about kids carving their names into their wrists and shooting up the school because they touched a game console - sure. But actually showing them in a positive light?
Oh yes - any day now. I've only been holding my breath for over 30 years. I've never seen my skin turn so many shades of blue before I passed out.
And I think a major rationale behind movies and games being so strongly hyped is that the actor/celebrity is so much more than the role that s/he plays. The mags these days don't talk exclusively about the current star's acting, they talk just as much if not more about said actor's glamorous life. People read the magazines to have a taste of stardom and fantasize what they would do if they were as glorious as the stars. Videogames don't offer that about their characters, their limited to the world of the game. There's no profit to be had hyping the (probably not-tremendously-glamorous) videogame celebs, so they don't.
I think it's because computer games aren't social. TV and movies are. You can watch a TV show with your friends or even talk about a TV show with your friend and you don't feel like you should be watching it instead. The same goes for movies. Even with a massively multiplayer online game, you're still sitting by yourself at your computer. Talking to someone out of game about the game is silly, unless you're trying to talk them into playing.
I had an opportunity a while ago to visit a "gaming center" for an article I was writing. Think of it as an internet cafe without the cafe. A LAN Party as a business. Anyway, the center was participating in a nationwide C&C Red Alert tournament. It wasn't social at all even though all the guys were sitting in the same room playing the same game.
Maybe console games. Maybe.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
This just in! People who play video games are under represented in mediums which they are less interested in! Why doesn't bloomberg cover reggae concerts more often? The medium most gamers prefer is THE INTERNET (or technically, the WWW). So of COURSE there isn't going to be more video game coverage on TV and the movies. Gamers don't watch as much TV and movies, and they are more than happy to read about games online. In fact, as represented by the huge popularity of "The Office" and "The Daily Show" on torrent sites, I'm guessing that TV is more likely to get co-opted onto the computer than vice versa. TV, Movies, and the recording industry are dead. Long live TV, the movies, and the recording industry on bit torrent!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
In fact, I find that games provide MORE social opportunities than just watching a TV show. TVs and movies are all passive. Everyone is staring at the same screen. Maybe after the show is over, you can discuss what happened and such, but that doesn't happen so much during it. (Many people, myself included, find it rude when you talk in the middle of a show) On the other hand, games are a lot more interactive. Additionally, there are often times where you can socialize, for example in between levels, or while the game is paused, or even in the middle of the game.
A tournament is a poor representation of being social in a game. Gee, you think in the middle of competition, you're going to have lots of chatting going on?
If you really want to see social gaming, then go visit a college campus. Walk through some of the dorms and you're sure to find a group of people playing games (Halo 2, Burnout, etc.). Or sit behind someone playing World of Warcraft and marvel at all the chat going on between players. You'll be amazed at how gamers aren't the stereotypical, loner geek-with-no-friends.
-- jchenx
It's just not mainstream. Outside of the hard-core, Johnny Exreme balls-to-the wall type gamers, it just doesn't get name recognition. Besides that, you have a small percentage of the total population buying most of the games. Sci-fi is in the same boat IMO. They have a rabid fanbase loyal to one series or another, having Inet debates about whether Darth Vader could pwn Captain Kirk. The problem is that the same people are buying all the Sci-fi. The same people who watch Star Trek went and camped out in line for "Revenge of the Sith", and are likely the same ones that are actively campaigning for the return of Firefly. If you look at the numbers for any one show, it's pretty small.
IMDB Top 100
If you look at the numbers, Passion of the Christ beats Empire Strikes Back, but if you looked around slashdot, more people were excited for Empire than Passion. I know that more people here saw The Voyage Home (ST4) than little mermaid.
Same with games -- a small portion of the population are the ones argueing about Wii,PS3, and Xbox (and will likely end up with all three). My guess is that less than 20% of the population of the US owns more than 10 games total. They may be vocal, but the number is tiny compared to 100% of the population that owns a TV, and 95% that sees a movie either in theaters or on DVD.
Let's use a handy little tool, found at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/. It calculates the value of money corrected for inflation across the years. The Empire Strikes Back, according to the IMDB's list, made $290,158,751 in 1980. Let's just plug that into our little calculator, correcting to 2005...
$736,904,249... Oh, and 53 cents. Just *slightly* more than the $380,268,258.46 that the Passion of the Christ made, corrected for the extra year.
A much more helpful list can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/movies/topadj. html. It's the top movies, ranked not by box office statistics (which are both uncorrected for inflation, and are not managed for increasing ticket prices that may or may not outstrip natural Consumer Price Index changes). We can see that Gone With the Wind (#68 in pure box office) and Star Wars (#2 in pure box office), first and second respectively by attendence, blow away every other movie by a huge margin. Your examples? Empire Strikes back ranks 15th, with 101.7 million attendees. Passion? 81st, with 53.7 million, barely more than half.
People will go see Sci-Fi - it just has to be done right.
http://ps2.gamezone.com/news/02_28_02_07_00PM.htm THQ's RED FACTION TO BE RE-LAUNCHED UNDER PLAYSTATION 2 "GREATEST HITS" COLLECTION Critically Acclaimed Action Game to be Available April 1 for $24.99; Highly Anticipated Sequel Red Faction 2, Scheduled to Ship Winter 2002 CALABASAS HILLS, Calif. - February 28, 2002 - THQ Inc. (NASDAQ NMS: THQI) today announced its critically acclaimed Red Faction(TM) for the PlayStation® 2 computer entertainment system will be re-launched this spring as part of Sony Computer Entertainment America's "Greatest Hits" collection. Beginning April 1, Red Faction will be available for the manufacturers suggested retail price of $24.99 at retail outlets nationwide. Red Faction is one of the first third-party titles to be included in the PlayStation 2 "Greatest Hits" collection. Each game considered for the collection must have been available at retail for more than nine months and boast sales in excess of 400,000 units. Red Faction will also be re-released across Europe as one of only five third-party games in Sony's PS2® 'Platinum' collection.
400,000/9 months = 44,444 games a month. at $50 (new release, pre-GH) it has to make somewhere in the range of $2 million. Or $20 million over 9 months. Go back to the movies list -- for movies $20 million in sales isn't an achievement -- it's a flop. Even Jumanji managed $100 million just at the box office. And movies aren't at the box office for very long -- maybe a month or two.
Now even if the sales of GH games are somewhat hampered by being PS2 exclusive, they are still FAR FAR below even fairly mediocre movies. Not to say that they have no influence at all, just that the reason "mainstream media" doesn't cover games is the same reason it doesn't cover indie films, sci-fi, documentaries or Anime -- they have a small audience. Until there's a large mainstream audience for video games -- until as many people know Amano as know Peter Jackson, or know Katamari from Calamari, I don't expect to read much about games in the press.